You must log in or register to comment.
Ah, but if you said anything against the blue (but not in favor of red), you were the vile, evil… CENTRIST! (I.e. a label just applied to you to single you out for not blindly agreeing with the zeitgeist.) Seriously, the front page of Lemmy for a good while was just toxic political “VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO” and if you didn’t agree, you were just a problem.
VBNMW was always “we want to give you a shitty candidate, you’ll vote for it and you’ll like it.”
It’s always been the same fear mongering strategy dems and Repubs have always used. Today it’s just very effective.
String them up next to the fash imo
With the current political climate USA is in, it might weaken him to get endorsements from the establishment.
Their masks are coming off. Voting in line with republicans and being vocal against anything progressive.
I was thinking the other day after NPR mentioned Elon’s recent spat that he could fund other candidates in mid terms. If he endorsed Democrats that might do more harm than good lol.
IIRC the KKK endorsed Hillary in 2016.
I’m not any fan of Clinton, but a single off brand kkk member who claimed to be the highest of said off brand changed from trump to Clinton because she seemed more coherent, does not sound like a kkk endorsement to me.
In fact I remember the KKK being the first organization’s to endorse Trump. I remember this because the second was Yueng Ling which I refuse to drink even though I love cheap lagers. This was early on, so not the common blanket endorsement of the party’s nominee, but genuinely working to sway the primaries when it wasn’t yet clear he’d win even the republican primary.
Vote blue so, Maintain the status quo!
If you primary these establishment fucks out you don’t have this problem.
This. We’ve seen what republicans want to do. We need to stop them and vote ‘not-republican’ when we can before the ability to do so is gone. The problem is we cannot stop there and only vote every 2-4 years for the least-bad option, we need to make better options. “Both sides” is reductive and hides the problem.
Get involved: find and support people who have your views for all offices: city, county, state, federal, maybe even HOA. Most of these are important. If the incumbent is not working for us, we need to fight them and suggest someone better. If the incumbent is unchallenged, then that’s a travesty and they need a primary, if the same party, or an opponent.
For the a while now we’ve seen the ‘left’ chase the ‘center’ and people like OP are mad at this. The solution is not ‘vote blue no matter who’, but that is a bandage to slow the bleeding and will resonate with the less-involved allies we have. The solution is to prove that we are the majority and push our own into leadership roles where they can make things better.
If you’re angry right now, run for office or canvas for someone who is. Being mad, depressed or just bitching online isn’t fixing anything. You can make things better, and it starts with finding a ‘blue’ worth voting for.
Okay, just hear me out for a second… I completely agree they should endorse him, but rather than just saying they are irreverent (though this may actually be the case) I would like to know in clear and concise terms WHY they are waiting/failing to endorse the man whom was chosen by the people. I think knowing why they won’t endorse him is very relevant to the discussion. Eith
TLDR; their silence is very telling.
My first thought is; do these people normally endorse Mayoral candidates?
For NYC? Of course they do. Not a small town in Suburbia friend, this is the biggest city in the country. The mayor of New York is more important and more powerful than a good amount of Governors.
https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Chuck_Schumer
I can’t say that this list is comprehensive (there are only 4 endorsements) but filtering through Chuck’s messages for the last 16 years is too much for me to do for a single comment on Lemmy.
I don’t know about the rest of them, though I certainly have my suspicions, but with gillibrand it’s very clearly just racism. That interview she gave was extremely telling.
It’s rich people. The reason is rich people.
Rich is a symptom of reduced empathy
The willingness to exploit systems & labor for fun & profit
Guess which other party apologizes when they’re wrong
Yes she’s very sorry the mask came off.
Well, and she admitted she was wrong. Publicly. So.
I mean b0tH SiDeZ and all that but still.
Every politician will eat shit when they have something that they want
“Rubio apologizes for ‘below the belt’ remarks about Trump’s appearance”
Oh so she’s going to back him now then?
Gillibrand and Mamdani had previously spoken by phone on Wednesday when she congratulated him the day after winning the Democratic mayoral primary.
Mamdani campaign spokesperson Andrew Epstein confirmed the Monday night call, adding that the apology was accepted and the two agreed to “set a path to move forward productively.”
Gillibrand’s readout said the two “discussed the need to bring down the temperature around the issue” of the war between Israel and Hamas, and that she “regretted not separating her own views from the radio show caller’s more clearly.”
“Gillibrand said she believes Mr. Mamdani is sincere when he says he wants to protect all New Yorkers and combat antisemitism,” the readout continued. “She said the GOP attacks on him are outrageous and unacceptable.”
Gillibrand’s team said the pair agreed to meet in person in New York City in the near future to discuss other issues including affordability and public safety.
Mamdani has worked to consolidate support from Democratic Party power players in the last week as he looks ahead to the general election after a heated primary where he was repeatedly attacked for his anti-Israel positions, such as saying the country was committing “genocide” in Gaza. Ranked choice results released Tuesday showed Mamdani growing his lead over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, winning 56 percent of votes counted.
I read that… but it unfortunately did not answer the question. But they play vague on purpose.
They’ve given interviews. According to them, Mamdani hasn’t yet proven his viability among the general population, he only won a primary where 15% of the DNC participated with a plurality vote of 43%. Furthermore, some of them represent districts that hardlined against Mamdani such as neighborhoods in the southeastern part of Brooklyn. Mamdani won Brooklyn overall but the difference between neighborhoods he won and lost were very stark.
I agree with you, though, that they should endorse Mamdani. Any concerns about his type of socialism can be easily quelled with Mamdani’s clear opposition to “communist countries”.
Not endorsing Mamdani is just asking to split the vote and give Republicans the chance to fuck everything up.
I don’t like ‘viability among gen pop’. It’s like assessing his electability. Doesn’t matter, he was chosen in a democratic primary vote. He’s the democratic candidate for mayor. If they expect us to fall in line and vote blue, they need to fall in line and endorse blue.
Rich fucks
“electability” was always a sham. It is exclusively used by millionaire news pundits and NYT writers to tell primary voters not to vote for the candidate with the policy that immediately improves the material conditions of the most people because of an imaginary cohort of “centrists” and “moderate republicans” who are terrified of anything good like free healthcare, child care, college, rent-control, and taxes on billionaires, but will totally vote for the version of those policies that will help nobody.
I agree but you have to focus on outcomes. Does endorsing him help or harm him? Does endorsing him help or harm themselves? The answer to these questions might very well be “I don’t know”.
If some general polls shine a big awesome light on Mamdani being the best possible candidate to defeat the Republican nominee, then hopefully that is more than enough reason for these few Democrats to fall in line behind him. If he polls at like 25%, it’s going to start being time to look at other options.
However, the people chose him. I think maybe I have a naive/idealistic view of what a democracy actually is
That kind of reasoning makes sense to not endorse him in a run off.
But in the general election? He’s got your party’s nomination, so back your party. Your Cuomo boy got primaried, get over it. (Edit: the ‘your’ in this sentence applies to the party members listed in the OP, not the commenter and/or OP)
This is just money talking. Rich people don’t like the ones that look like they won’t bend to them. Hopefully he continues to not.
Also, this is yet another reason I don’t associate with political parties. Super not a fan of them. It’s the system we got, and I do vote with the dual party power structure in mind, but you’ll never see me signed up in one.
That map makes New York look like a pelican rubbing its belly next to a rock.
Just looked up the bright blue square on Brooklyn - it’s Borough Park: “home to one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities outside Israel, with one of the largest concentrations of Jews in the United States”
Hmm! I don’t think it’s his policies they are against…
Yeah it should come as no surprise, he’s very openly pro-palestine and during the primaries the media framed a perfect picture of Mamdani for Palestine and Cuomo for Israel.
We’re not talking about the mayor of Canon Beach, OR [randomly selected] with its cute chocolate shops, bed-and-breakfasts and small population. We’re talking about going from state assembly advocate of the MTA to the whole shebang of one of the biggest concentrations of money and power in the world.
Admittedly, Eric Adams is the incumbent, so - wtf do I know. I’m all for Mamdani winning, I just think it’s understandable to say “I’d prefer someone with more experience”. That’s not an excuse to shout him down, but I could understand not promoting him.
Plus - again, not a native New Yorker so wtf do I know - but I’d imagine someone who’s publicly associated with what I’m guessing many people understand to be Muslim terrorism (I know that’s not true, I’m saying many people think it is) would be difficult in most cities but in NY there’s some reason it’s an extra touchy subject.
According to them, Mamdani hasn’t yet proven his viability among the general population, he only won a primary where 15% of the DNC participated with a plurality vote of 43%. Furthermore, some of them represent districts that hardlined against Mamdani such as neighborhoods in the southeastern part of Brooklyn. Mamdani won Brooklyn overall but the difference between neighborhoods he won and lost were very stark.
What they’re really mad about is how badly the Democrats planned, thinking they’d waltz in past the wreckage of Adams with Cuomo and seeing how shit his campaign was. Now they’re going to lose the SDNY office leverage they had AND get painted as radical leftist tankies AND lose the moderate votes.
Add them to the list.
Huge correlation with AIPAC being their top donors, fyi.
Find me a politician on the US national stage who isn’t funded by AIPAC.
Massie doesn’t count.
Ilhan Omar, Bernie Sanders, Rashida Tlaib, Summer Lee, AOC (though she’s compromised with the party leadership on Israel’s genocide to an abhorrent degree nonetheless), Ayanna Presley, Cory Bush (successfully primaried over it) and Jamaal Bowman (ditto), and everyone else not listed here.
They’re a small minority for sure, but they exist and pretending otherwise just feeds into the manipulative establishment “electability” narrative that they use to poison the public against progressive candidates.
I find it incredibly ironic and enlightening that the one Jewish congressperson I can name off the top of my head is on this list.
Can you please explain the last line? I’d like to be more informed.
What do you mean national stage? Because I can think of at least a handful.
I mean someone who’s actually been featured in national news, and would be known across the country.
For example, there is a New York state congress versus the US Federal Congress, they probably meant a distinction there because obviously state congressmen won’t get very much PAC money.
Oh of course; in that case then Sanders, AOC, Warren, Jayapal, Omar, Tlaib.
There are some others who have really low amounts of donations, like Tim Walz which I’ll let slide; but if looking at FEC reports of the top offenders like Jeffries and Schumer, they’ve got millions from AIPAC.
the last they want is non-aligned democrat to israel.
They’d rather throw the election to the republicans than see a democrat who isn’t pro-Israel.
And that right there is the the key! Is Sirius about serving their corporate masters and their deep pockets
ORIN?
Why the fuck is schumer still in office?! Hes the very definition of a dickless, useless democrat. Fuck that guy, just get lost useless boomer, let someone who gives a shit take the seat.
He’s WORSE than useless. Not only is he a Manchin level shill for fossil fuel interests, he’s said that his job is to “keep the left Pro Israel”, a statement so blatant that he’d call out anyone ascribing that sentiment to him for using the antisemitic “dual loyalty” trope.
There’s literally REPUBLICANS in Congress right now that are less awful than he is! Imagine that: the Senate leader of what the Dem leadership pretends to be the Left being worse than some actual fascists 🤬
Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted against the BBB, for example
Though tbf, Paul is such an ancap shithead that his objection is that it doesn’t kill ENOUGH poor people, women, minorities, and combinations of more than one of the above.
That’s not how HE puts it, of course, but he’s smart enough to have gotten a doctorate and has been in politics more than long enough to recognize social mass murder and codified bigotry when he sees it.
And Thom was the only person in the world who voted for Ted Cruz’ amendment to the BBB that would have outlawed state-level AI regulation. And Susan Collins played dumb as bricks to justify not voting for justice in Trump’s impeachment. Schumer is Cheney level heinous (already a high bar). These fuckers are just broken clocks
There’s literally REPUBLICANS in Congress right now that are less awful than he is!
You had me til here.
AOC will probably primary him. Schumer is at something like a 2 decade low in approval while AOC polls much higher state-wide.
Schumer is not the worse one, he’s trying to endorse Mamdani without using the word endorsement to not upset his donors: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5368933-schumer-jeffries-mamdani-nyc/
Comparing the mild cynism with the backstabbing idiots that are going to implode the Democratic Party puts him on “just a bit shitty” list in this case.
Definitely not as bad as Gillibrand and her racist tirade she went on.
Fuck his donors. He should run with the money and endorse Mamdani if he’s such a good person
Who said anything about good person? He made it to lead senator of an unholy big tent coalition of a party. Of course he is a spineless butt kisser. Which is still better than a hypocritical backstabber.
money. same as the rest who vote pro-fascist
Did those politicians say “vote blue no matter who” or was that people online in an effort to avoid gestures broadly?
Genuine question, they’ve always been massive disappointments who would benefit from that.
I specifically said “vote blue no matter who”, because while yes, there are Establishment Democrats that exist, Extermination Republicans are quite objectively fucking worse.
Because if Fascist 47 wasn’t in office, we could at least try to get shit done, instead of putting out 17+ daily fires.
Rebrand: Vote Blue, because what else can you do?
A lot actually but that would require people to get politically educated and we all know how well that has worked out.
Vote blue it’s the least you can do?
Lol, no. Miss me with that “blue MAGA” talk
And leave the house
I mean it might work with Luigi pic in the background. But we all know that won’t happen.
So what were we doing for the last 50 years?
Fascist 47 hasn’t been the president that long, and anyone with a brain knew he would tear this country down.
How was he able to do that? How does he have so much more power than democratic presidents? Genuine question bc all my brain says is that the dem potus’ don’t want change. 45/47 was able to really rock the boat the wrong way, why couldn’t 46 make this much change in the other direction? 44?..
Democratic voters usually punish politicians that violate laws and rule of law (see: Mayo Adams of NYC popularity dropping after his indictment), while republican voters don’t care about criminal activities, not even after 34 convictions with strong evidence.
How was he able to do that? How does he have so much more power than democratic presidents?
Dems and the Dem base run on the idea of an actual government with laws and standards. Dems sometimes violate those laws, but with plausible deniability in the vein of lawyers.
The GOP and the GOP base runs on the idea that hurting people is the highest good, and that laws are just a means to an end. They used to have more of the “lawyerly plausible deniability” strain about them, but Trump and his ghoulish following have dispensed with that, as they’re convinced that laws are a secret liberal plot to stop America from becoming a White Man’s Country once again.
Basically, the GOP doesn’t give a fuck about all the rules the Dems follow, and the GOP base won’t electorally punish them for it, because the GOP base is made of fascists.
One side is trying to govern, the other side is trying to win…
Three things.
-
Trump is doing a lot of things that are technically within his powers as long as there is an emergency. Trump is declaring everything an emergency.
-
A lot of what Trump is doing is trying to tear down parts if the executive branch. The only real recourse to that is an active Congress, but the House and Senate are governed by his party and can choose not to act while the President tears down everything.
-
A lot of what Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional, but he’s got a neutered Supreme Court and would probably quote President Jackson if the Court consistently ruled against Trump.
-
Because half the shit he’s doing is illegal and 46 would not break the law so fragrantly and repeatedly, and when shot down he listened to the courts.
Republicans have control of every branch.
Well for starters we haven’t had a Democrat senate supermajority without caucus since 1979, we haven’t even given them 50 since 2012-2013, and now everything is going to shit, so…
Democrats need to grow a spine and abolish filibuster. republicans already removed the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations, might as well go all the way so maybe we have a chance of fixing things.
fascists can just ignore the parliamentarian anyways.
I’m gonna repeat this again.
Have not had more than 50 in over a decade. Why would you allow the simple majority rule when you’re literally outnumbered?
You can’t possibly be equating the current situations with anything in the past
The present doesn’t exist without the past. Our current situation is just as much about the Dems failure to significantly alter the course of our country as it is the GOPs efforts to undermine democracy. One does not follow without the other.
Not specifically, no. Though in 2020 and ‘24 they were definitely on about party unity
Anyone who has ever used that phrase un-ironically is politically tone deaf, or a Republican agent. I get the sentiment, and even agree with it, but it doesn’t communicate what people who use it think it does. The kind of people who use that phrase are the ones I blame most for gestures broadly.
This is one of those situations where not certifying the guy and just getting out of the way is an absolutely terrible idea if you enjoy your position. He got young voters out. The same people who are pretty decent at getting out and organizing for protests and with the way things are going these fish may grow teeth. Maybe not sharks, though no one messes with piranhas all the same.
18-25 has always, and will always be, the demographic with the lowest voter turnout. By a significant margin. Nearly every election, people seem to get this idea that “This time it will be different! The youth are really fired up this time! It’s important, so I’m sure they’ll turn out!” And then the election happens and they never even break 50%.
It’s not a messaging problem, or an outreach problem. There is essentially nothing that can change it. The issue is, and say it with me; 18-25 has always, and will always be, the demographic with the lowest voter turnout.
Nonsense. I think we can see in the Lemmy communities that 18-25 are hard core voters who . . . care about . . . voting . . uh
Oh shit.
Hopefully they all become irrelevant sooner or later.
Thankfully they self-identify as those who need to be replaced
Saves a little time
